The French President and His Wife Preparing to Offer Expert Testimony in American Legal Proceedings to Establish Brigitte’s Gender, Legal Counsel Affirms

The French President and his wife plan to offer photographic and scientific proof in a US court to verify that Brigitte Macron is a woman, according to their legal representative.

The Macrons filed a defamation suit against right-wing commentator Candace Owens, who publicly alleged that Mrs. Macron is not biologically female.

Reacting, Owens’ legal team filed a motion to reject the lawsuit.

“This has been deeply distressing,” stated legal counsel Tom Clare, adding that the claims are a “distraction” to the president.

The lawyer highlighted that scientific evidence is planned to be introduced in court to counter the baseless allegations through a comprehensive manner.

“Brigitte remains firmly resolved to do what it takes to clear her name,” Clare continued.

Inquired about if photographs of Mrs. Macron during pregnancy would be used, their representative affirmed that such evidence is available and can be offered in accordance with judicial procedures.

Candace Owens, who has millions of followers across platforms, repeatedly promoted the belief that Mrs. Macron is male.

Such accusations originally surfaced in niche internet groups earlier, receiving traction via content created by French bloggers.

Even though the couple initially secured a defamation case domestically, it was reversed on appeal on grounds of constitutional rights, not the merits of the claims.

The Macrons have since challenging the outcome.

Regarding the American case, they allege that she knowingly discounted credible evidence and featured individuals spreading falsehoods.

American libel standards require that people in the spotlight demonstrate “reckless disregard” on the part of the person being sued.

“It concerns defending my honour!” Emmanuel Macron told a French publication. “This is false, promoted with the aim of creating distress.”

Owens’ legal team assert that the case cannot be litigated in that jurisdiction, citing procedural issues and potential personal strain.

The commentator in the past justified her comments, stating her belief in open discourse.